Search Documents

By A. W. Khair, S. S. Peng

Discussion by J. Parker Gentlemen; Rainy day in Upper Michigan, a good time to catch up on reading. Am doing that, and have a couple of questions concerning the K and P paper on roof problems and supports. I wonder if the authors can enlighten me. The compressive strength of the coal was reported as 4.4 MPa (633 psi) and compressive stresses measured in the coal seam were reported at around 27.6 and 48.2 MPa(4000 and 7000psi ). Can such a soft coal actually contain such a high level of stress? Can it be measured as if the material were elastic, or does the coal behave plastically? Can that stress level be confirmed with hydraulic load cells? And if the coal is so soft, and if it is plastic, why is the stress field not hydrostatic'? The intact roofrock appears to be unusually strong, with compressive strength reported at around 145 MPa (21,000 psi), and some failures were noted as soon as the rock was exposed. Were tests run to find out how that rock responded to the addition of moisture, from sprays or from humid air? Did moisture weaken the rock? Did it cause the rock to expand quickly, thus to induce internal compressive stress? How can the near-vertical cutters, as shown in the photographs, be attributed to primarily horizontal stresses? Did the cutters follow any particular pattern in the development panels, which might be related to a particular stress pattern? For example, did they always appear alongside the stiffest pillar? Or always along the northwest rib? Was there any evidence of the pillars and entries "rotating" under the influence of differential horizontal stresses? How much did the entries and pillars rotate as the longwall face approached and passed? After rooffalls, did the openings assume shapes which would indicate a preferred shape in that stressfield and geology? Did crosscuts always survive without damage, as shown in the sketch?

Jan 1, 1992

By R. W. Barbaro, R. V. Ramani, K. V. K. Prasad, P. T. Luckie

Discussion by A. Unal Barbaro et al. (1990) implemented a tedious study aimed at delineating the short-scale spatial variability of sulfur in a coal seam. It is not possible, however, to extend their conclusions to any other coal seam or use their in any other fashion, because the background geology was not presented. Nor were the conclusions accompanied by geological interpretations in the paper. In addition, an unfortunate printing error occurred where the total sulfur (determined by High Temperature Combustion) variogram in Fig.3 was duplicated in Fig. 2 instead of the seam height variogram. A more serious error, however, has been committed in the definition of the variable, seam height. What is defined as seam height by Barbaro et al. (1990) is, in essence, mining height, and is not a regionalized variable that should be studied by geostatistical methods directly. Despite the fact that the variable, seam height, is not defined in the paper explicitly, the following quotation discloses the fallacy: "All roof rock that exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft) from the floor was not taken because the longwall was operated to not mine more than 1.8 in (6 ft) unless the coal seam height exceeded 1.8 m (6 ft)." From this definition, the seam height, and therefore the sampling height, is equal to the actual coal thickness, if the coal thickness is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft). Otherwise, it is equal to the sum of the coal thickness plus the thickness of the roof rock that complements the thickness to 1.8 m (6 ft). In the latter case, the seam height is constant and equal to 1.8 m (6 ft). It is possible to conduct a variogram study on a pool of samples that are realizations of two different variables. But the conclusions derived would not belong to any one of the two variables uniquely and, therefore, do not possess any significance. Geostatistical analysis is irrelevant for the sum of multiple regionalized variables formed by arbitrary selections. In a two-seam setting, for example, the mining height, as defined by the thickness of one seam at one location and the thickness of both seams at another location (due to quality and/or minimum thickness considerations perhaps), should not be used in the calculation of one common variogram. The two seams should be modeled separately. They can then be combined according to the specific purposes of the study. On the other hand, if a constant is added to a regionalized variable (to incorporate dilution perhaps), the variogram of the new variable will not change. Barbaro et al. (1990), surprisingly, does not give any geological interpretation of their results despite the fact that most of them can be explained by the origins of sulfur in a coal seam. The presentation of the results of a geostatistical study with no reference to the geology of the deposit is uninformative. It may also be misleading for the potential users of geostatistics, It is not unusual to find nuggets of pyrite in coal seams. In such cases, pyritic sulfur will probably display a spatial structure for only a very small distance that will appear in the experimental variogram as no spatial correlation. This very well known phenomenon is called the pure nugget effect in geostatistics (Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) and perhaps can explain the lack of correlation found for pyritic sulfur content. The lack of correlation found for the total sulfur content may also be explained in the same way because the total sulfur content is dominated by the pyritic sulfur content in this case study. One should notice, however, that the situation may completely be reversed after cleaning the coal. Not all of the inorganic sulfur should be expected to be in the form of pyrite nuggets in a coal seam. It may also be disseminated in the coal seam and it is expected that it follows a certain spatial structure. However, an existing spatial structure may be masked by including a part of the roof rock, rich in sulfides, into the seam thickness in an arbitrary fashion because areas having a sandstone roof sometimes are known to show a higher sulfur content due to the downward percolation of solutions rich in iron sulfides (Clark, 1979). Plants use sulfur in their growth processes. Much of this sulfur is bound organically during peat accumulation and coal formation (Cecil et al., 1978.) This suggests a spatial structure of some sort for the organic sulfur. However, it is not possible to test this hypothesis because the results obtained by the authors for the organic sulfur content are not given in this paper. For this reason, the conclusion that simple average of the nearby samples would provide the best unbiased estimates is questionable for organic sulfur and is not based on any substantial supporting evidence. It is suspected that no spatial structure was detected and this was due to high sampling and laboratory analysis errors. Before concluding that sulfur variability in the seam at the location of study was random, a more detailed study for the disseminated non-pyritic sulfur should have been conducted, not for the sake of scientific curiosity only, but also due to its utmost importance with regard to coal cleaning and emission control. Pyritic sulfur can be cleaned to a considerable extent, whereas organic sulfur can not, making the emission control strategies highly dependent on the spatial distribution of the organic sulfur (Knudsen, 1981). In the light of these facts, one wonders why Barbaro et al. (1990) did not present the results of their study for the sulfate and organic sulfur content. References Barbaro, R.W.. et al., 1990, "Short-Scale Spatial Variability of Sulfur in a Coal Seam,' Mining Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 1267-1269. Cecil, C.B., et al., 1978, "Geology of Ccontaminants in coal," report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina, 123 pp. Clark, W.J.. 1979, "An interfluve model of the upper Freeport coal Bed in part of western Pennsylvania," unpublished MS thesis, University of South Carolina, 57 pp. Journel, A.G., and [Huijbregls], Ch. J., 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp. Knudsen, H.P., 1981. "Development of a Conditional simulation model of a coal deposit," unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona, 109 pp.

Jan 1, 1992

By Stephen Semeniuk

Discussion by Stephen Semeniuk Discussion As a valuator and SME member, I view Ross D. Lawrence's position as based on unproven and faulty assumptions made with regard to the pragmatic evidence presented in his paper. Moreover, his call for the inclusion of all mineral resources in discounted cash flow valuations is redundant, if not irrelevant, as there are procedures that already take all classes of mineralization into consideration for valuation purposes. In my experience as a valuator, I find that Canadian securities regulators are more than accommodating in allowing any valuations of mineral properties to be based on cash flow calculations. In other business areas, the same regulators usually reject discounted cash flow valuations of projects or businesses with no operating history. Instead, the regulators prefer valuations to be based on other transactions tested in the marketplace. Valuations based on actual market transactions are less subjective than discounted cash flow calculations and/or the capitalization of arbitrary, untested or undemonstrated earnings projections. In the mining and minerals sector, such projections may be made by persons not qualified to make such projections. In support of this statement, I direct readers to the article "Valuation of mineral properties which do not contain exploitable reserves" by Lionel C. Kilburn, which appeared in the August 1990 issue of the CIM Bulletin. To quote from the article: "Value of a mineral property depends basically upon metal prices, recoverable grades, mining and metallurgical practices, commodity supply and demand, and political-economic conditions, all of which vary with time. Five fields of expertise influence the value of a mineral property: •geological engineering, •commodity markets, •financial markets, •stock markets and •mineral property markets. The skills of geologists and engineers properly apply to the first field of expertise. Knowledge and consideration of the other four fields is important, but such advice is more properly sought from marketing experts, economists and stockbrokers." Securities regulators have created no hardship for valuators by excluding unsubstantiated resources in discounted cash flow valuations. In the field of engineering, best design practices apply. A margin of safety is built into the design criteria for any new equipment or structure that will exceed normally expected load levels and stresses, even though such considerations imply higher front end costs. In accounting, the comparable operating principle is conservatism. It explains why, for balancesheet presentation purposes, inventory is stated at cost or market, whichever is the lowest value. Similarly, when the engineering or geoscience-based valuator plays in the field of finance, the rules of accounting and applied economics apply. Regulators in their skepticism of income-based valuations are in tune with similar views already expressed in mining literature. To quote H. Van Tingley, in Mining Magazine, July 1996: "... the DCF method has inherent dangers when applied to undeveloped resources. Firstly, it presents an often-undeserved aura of accuracy. A DCF value is no more accurate than the least accurate of the assumptions incorporated into the calculation - and assumptions

Jan 1, 2003

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By M. S. Azun

The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also. I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitalize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondent government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 1, 1985

By John M. Sharp

John M. Sharp, Jr. (Assistant Professor of Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.)-Geothermal gradient and surface temperature data anomalies are potentially useful tools in mineral exploration, These data, however, may reflect a number of geologic and hydrologic processes as well as the thermophysical properties of the geologic materials. The author presents a relatively simple model which may be of value in mineral exploration. The lack of consideration of other processes, however, limits its usefulness. For instance, because of erosion or sediment deposition over geologic time the land surface must be considered a moving boundary in such a model. Evaluation of this effect coupled with annual surface temperature and thermal conductivity variations can result in temperature profiles such as shown in [Figs. 4 to 7]. These effects and others, such as ground-water movement," must be considered and filtered from the data before proper interpretation is possible. Another assumption which should have been discussed is, why were the observed mean surface temperatures not used for extrapolation of the gradients in [Figs. 4, 6, and 7?] Conductive heat transport responds to the actual boundary (land surface) temperature, not to theoretical temperatures in the absence of perturbations. Benfield presents a theoretical model for calculating perturbations in the geothermal gradient for erosion and sedimentation. The temperature (T) at any time (t) and any depth below the surface (x) is given by [ ] where T is the mean surface temperature, G, the geothermal gradient, v, the rate of erosion (or sedimentation),[ ], the long-term rate of change of T0, and k is the thermal diffusivity of the rock. Using the author's values and a rate of erosion of 1.54 cm per yr for a period of 10,000 yr, a thermal profile as shown in [Fig. 10] will be generated. A thermal diffusivity of 0.0164 sq cm per sec was used, corresponding to a thermal conductivity of 0.0082 cal per cm per sec per C. In [Fig. 11], a sediment deposition rate of 3.0 cm per yr for a period of 1000 yr was used to generate the subsurface temperature profile. A surface temperature of 24.3°C was used, as specified in [Fig. 9, 7], was set equal to zero for both cases. Superposition on the generated profiles in [Figs. 10 and 11] of the annual surface temperature variation perturbation (which may be calculated in a number of ways) will yield profiles similar to those in [Figs. 4 and 7]. Similar profiles can also be produced by regional ground-water flow. Models like the author's can be of value in mineral exploration. Other processes, however, which affect surface temperatures and gradients must first be considered, calculated, and filtered from the data if anything but the crudest qualitative interpretation is to be made. Robert C. Edmiston (Author's reply)-Professor Sharp has raised three objections to my interpretation of the subsurface temperature data I collected at Silver Bell. These are: 1) No correction was made for erosion or sedimentation,

Jan 1, 1977

By A. G. Moncrieff

In the paper the authors show [(Fig. 12)] in diagramatic form a "typical vacuum filtration system." This indicates a drum filter with two filtrate receivers-one for mother liquor and one for wash liquor. Have the authors ever found a drum filter that will adequately separate mother liquor from wash liquor? I recall in about 1957 being superintendent of a major copper leaching operation treating oxide flotation concentrates. The plan was being expanded, and filters installed to replace CCD following acid leaching and primary thickening of the pulp. The design of the expansion allowed the mother liquor to join the thickener overflow as feed for the electrolytic tankhouse. The water balance required that only pan of the wash liquor could be electrolysed direct, and the remainder had to be treated by lime precipitation. The design assumed the mother liquor would have the same copper content (about 50 gpl) as in the leach pulp solution, and the wash liquor about 50% of this (25 gpl from memory). You can imagine my horror when, on starting up, the solution from the mother liquor receiver contained somewhat under 40 gpl and, from the wash liquor receiver, somewhat over 40 gpl. The filters were provided by two of the most reputable manufacturers and, in the end I believe they agreed that never before had they supplied rotary drum filters that would segregate the filtrates. By changes to the valve design we made minor improvements, but eventually decided that insufficient segregation of the filtrates was possible to warrant trying to do it. On further consideration I concluded that, owing to the time delay between solution passing through the cake and entering the valve, segregation was impossible, though radical alteration of the internal piping of the filter might have improved it. I would be interested to know if anyone has found a solution to this problem using a drum filter. If not, why go on publishing information that infers that it is possible?

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1985

By A. D. Hughes

C. W. MERRILL*-Mr. Hughes' paper not only is very well presented but is most timely in that it covers a subject of vital interest to the United States. Tin is one of the strategic metals which has not been found here in appreciable quantities. The total United States tin output since the first recorded production over 100 years ago would not supply current consumption for a fortnight. On the consumption side, tin is extremely important in national defense because of its use in tin plate which, in the form of tin cans, makes it possible to feed properly the armies that the United States recruits from its civilian population in emergencies. Moreover, the internal combustion engines so important in powering tanks, planes, and other war machines, require large quantities of tin alloys for bearings and for soldering. These considerations, along with the fact that Malaya, historically, has been the leading source of tin to the United States, make the kind of information that Mr. Hughes has presented so ably, a matter of vital interest.

Jan 1, 1949

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

Remarks Of Mr. Robert W. Hunt, General Superintendent, Albany And Rensselaer Iron And Steel Company., Troy N. Y. - In discussing Dr. Dudley's two most interesting papers, I feel a natural hesitancy in disagreeing with conclusions formed after such careful and conscientious work. But I think he has made his deductions from too meagre premises. The analyses of but twenty-five samples are entirely too few to justify the establishment of so important a formula. When we consider that he indirectly proposes to regulate an interest amounting, even at the present low prices, to over $20,000,000 per annum, we may well hesitate before accepting a formula based upon the chemical and physical analyses of but twenty-five steel rails. Dr. Dudley touches the keynote in referring to the proposed labors of the Government Test Commission. They based their hopes of attaining success upon the chemical and physical analyses of a very large number of samples, and in the only branch of investigation which the short-sighted policy of Congress has allowed them to complete, i.e., chain cables, we find that a dozen, twenty-five or one hundred tests gave no satisfactory results. It was only after many hundreds that they were enabled to draw conclusions. There are so many circumstances bearing upon the life of a rail, that the task of extracting a correct result seems herculean. I presume I am right in stating that in our Northern latitudes early winter and spring months witness the breaking of the greatest number of rails, thus seeming to prove that an unstable road-bed has much to answer for. Then, again, broken and flattened wheels must be taken into account, but I am convinced that more rails have been broken by the treatment which they received before leaving the rolling-mill * The remarks of the participants in this debate have been written out by the speakers, and are here given without any attempt to retain the order of the dis¬cussion. While the report does not, therefore, preserve the vigor and spontaneity of the debate, it is believed that it gains in value by giving the matured views of the speakers. The continuation of this discussion at the Pittsburgh Meeting, May, 1879 (beginning with remarks of Mr. Cloud on page 401), is appended for convenience of reference.-T. M. D., Sec'y

Jan 1, 1879

By Hickling G.

Discussion at the Manchester Geological and Mining Society' general meeting held in Manchester, March 14th , 1916, with Leonard R. Fletcher, President, in the Chair, of a paper published in Trans. Inst. M. E., 1915, vol. L., p.328 and 1916, vol. LI., p.91 comprised a written contribution by Faulds A.

Dec 1, 1916

By Hickling G.

Discussion at the Manchester Geological and Mining Society's general meeting held in Manchester, February 8th 1916, with Mr. Leonard R. Fletcher, President, in the chair, of papers previously published in Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs.,1915, vol. L, p.322 and p.328. Included are a written contribution by Ollerenshaw W. and oral discussion by the author, Gerrard J., Paton J.D., Smith S.A., Stephenson H., Dixon H.O., Pickup W., Fletcher L.R. and Atherton H.S.

Dec 1, 1916

Secretary's Apology: Although every effort was made to secure efficient stenographers, the railroad conditions at the time made it impossible to get stenographers from Salt Lake City. Practically all of the discussion was therefore lost, and the Secretary's apologies are offered to those whose names and remarks we are unable to record. 'We are indebted to R. Dawson Hall of Coal Age for what we have been able to print. The question was asked why belt conveyors are not more generally used. BENEDICT SHUBART: Belt conveyors lack the ruggedness of metal conveyors and require more accurate alignment. They are much used in England though comparatively scarce here. The H. C. Frick Company's belt installation at Colonial mine is an unusual installation for unusual purposes. It is hardly main haulage, but is more comparable to railroad transportation. The belts are in long sections,, nine hundred to twenty-three hundred feet, there are no particular grades, only two turns, and the immense tonnage handled justifies a quality of installation that at this day would not prove economical in most mines. EUGENE McAULIFFE, Union Pacific Coal Co., Omaha: Was much impressed on learning at the American Mining Congress that the Hudson Coal Company had mined last year 1,500.000 tons of coal from a 36-inch bed and had transported this coal to the mine cars by scrapers and conveyors. He did not believe that because one or two percent of the men around the mines were opposed to loading machines, that it should be said that the mine workers were inimical to such labor saving means. He believes that when duly explained to them they could see the advantages of the equipment offered and would be friendly to its introduction. The Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company at Sheridan have eight Goodman Hydraulic loaders in operation in rooms .with Joy loaders driving the headings. It is not possible for the mines which had to pay high wages to compete with those whose wage scales were lower unless by the introduction of loading machines. He received a letter from Dr. L. E. Young of St. Louis, general manager of the Union Collieries Company, that his two Goodman Hydraulic machines were loading an average of three hundred tons each daily. THE SECRETARY: H. N. Taylor, president, Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company, said Mr. Green of the American Federation of Labor told him he would have no trouble with Union Labor, and, if any local disturbances were created, they would be stopped. The Union nationally is with the introduction of labor saving equipment. J. B. FORRESTER, General Superintendent. United States Fuel Company, Hiawatha. In his opinion metal conveyors are preferred because they can be lengthened and shortened at pleasure, and so can be operated with greater flexibility than belt conveyors. W. C. HOLMAN, Chief Engineer. Phelps Dodge Corp: The Phelps Dodge Corporation have two Jeffrey belt conveyors in tandem which obviates brushing where the coal is low. MR. E. O. WIEDERANDERS, Jeffrey Mfg. Co.: Says he has seen belt conveyors in use in England and is much taken with the idea. MR. WM. MOORHEAD, Phelps Dodge Corp.: Our conveyors are in twenty-foot sections, each with a motor. Three of them tandem make a sixty-foot face. GENERAL: There was discussion regarding the size of the coal produced by conveyors. It was said that when the Gunn-Quealy Company started their operations, the coal was very large, but now there is not so much care taken to produce large coal as the market is now demanding smaller coal. The Secretary said that the use of conveyors at the Kemmerer Coal Company's mine had almost doubled the percentage of lump coal. Mr. McAuliffe questioned

Jan 1, 1925

CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Some of the members will want to question Mr. Farnham on some of the things he has brought tip, so we will throw the meeting open for discussion. I am quite sure Mr. Farnham will be willing and glad to answer any questions that may be put to him. MR. HOLMAN: I would like to ask Mr. Farnham a question in regard to the Duckbill: How wide a face will it operate without moving the bill? MR. FARNHAM: The Duckbill is a device that was developed in the Union Pacific Mine at Rock Springs, within the last few months, and it is shaped something like, a dustpan, with discharge throat in the rear. They made one seven feet wide and found it was too wide, and the one they are using now is between three and four feet in width. The front section of the conveyor, which attaches to the duckbill, meshes into it to form a sliding section, and the front end of the Duckbill is pushed by the upper segments. I saw one used in a room twenty-four feet wide, and they drew it back after they cleaned out one room and pushed it forward again. MR. HOLMAN: You have no arrangement other than ratchet work? MR. FARNHAM: The ratchet is for forward working and back; the sections are made 12 or 13 feet long, and the stroke of the conveyor automatically works the ratchet; they can ratchet it back; it is a hand device. MR. HOLMAN: They just swing the end of the conveyor across the face to pick up the loose coal? MR. FARNHAM: Yes; they are also planning to use it endwise along the panel face, that and the room work both are quite new in their application, and I do not think the Union Pacific is giving out any results as yet, because the system has not been in use long. MR. HOLMAN: We are planning on putting one in very shortly. MR. HALL: I understand they can swing it over 30 degrees one way or the other, and it goes the same way easily because of the continual jar of the back and forward motion on a 60-degree swing. SECRETARY SHUBART: Take on a comparatively long conveyor, you can get quite a sweep, a large part of the circle. The Duckbill could command quite a large range. For a 12-foot entry, take a four-foot wide advance through the middle of the shot coal, with a 12-foot advance, ratchet back, swing the Duckbill to the rib and repeat; but I do not think they could get as much as 60 degree. on the end of the Duckbill without curving further back. The conveyor is light and not normally set on any permanent foundation. I saw one of Mr. McCarty's first machines, a rather rudimentary one, clean tip a 12-trot entry, 21 tons of coal, in 16 minutes, three men at the face and one at the loading end. MR. FARNHAM: The average time to clean the entries is about an hour-to clean up good-it wouldn't take but a short time; that is why they get this record of several cuts a shift. CHAIRMAN LITTLEJOHN: Are there any other questions you would like to ask Mr. Farnham? MR. HOLMAN: We were discussing this entry driving in regard to the entry loader; an entry loader in advance work, just what you have to do to place the jackbars with the sheave-blocks? Do you dig along the ribs after the coal is shot or do you have any other scheme that could be worked out to a good advantage? MR. FARNHAM: This record is a report I have just received from our Chicago office, without the full details, which I have written for. I am sorry I cannot give you the details. This was an Indiana or Pennsylvania mine, near Pocahontas, not the one where they had an accident. I assume they set the jacks ahead and swung and dumped the coal partly out with a scoop and partly by hand, but the application for that for entry driving is entirely new. The reports stated that they anticipated using that as a standard method of entry driving in the future. I will be glad to see that you get a copy of it when I get the report completed. MR. MONAY: Mr. Shubart, did you say they loaded 12 tons in 16 minutes? SECRETARY SHUBART: Twenty-one tons. MR. MONAY: How long did it take to change the machinery out of there

Jan 1, 1926

By Dickinson C.

Discussion at the The Midland Counties Institution of Engineers' general meeting held in Nottingham on 6th May 1916, on the paper published in Trans. I.Min.E., vol.XLVIII, 1914, p.400, included brief oral contributions by Bragge G.S. and Hepplewhite W.H. with the author's responses regarding leakage and boring of cement into the coal

Dec 1, 1916

By Thomas D. E.

Discussion at the Manchester Geological and Mining Society' general meeting held in Manchester, March 14th , 1916, with Leonard R. Fletcher, President, in the Chair, of a paper published in Trans. Instn. Min. Engrs., 1916, vol. L., page 482, comprised the author's written response to suggestions made in previous discussion

Dec 1, 1916

John Birkinbine, Philadelphia, Pa.: We have in the Institute two Dudleys—Dr. Charles B. Dudley, who has so thoroughly studied the chemical composition and physical behavior of rail-steel, and Dr. P. H. Dudley, whose investigations and

Jan 1, 1900

Discussion at the Midland Institute of Mining, Civil, and Mechanical Engineers' general meeting held in Leeds, March 21st, 1916, with T. Beach, vice-president, in the chair, of a paper published in Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs., 1916, vol. L., page 509, comprised a written contribution by O'Shea L.T.

Dec 1, 1916